Harrop twin screw sc for s65

[esquire]

From the thread linked above by whats77inaname:

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

The S65 motor has held up with boost very well over the years when tuned properly and kept within it's limits. We have been very happy with this platform. With well over 500 kits installed worldwide now the track record on our kits have been very solid.

I looked into the new M5 / M6 but the weight and cost made my decision to go back to another M3 easy.

[dvpouldar26]

Originally Posted by esquire

They certainly aren't pricing this kit to penetrate the market. At 13k or so, they are pricing the kit on par with already proven kits. As a value proposition its hard to take a 13k dive on an unproven kit, especially one based on entirely new architecture for the e9x M3.

Especially coming this late to the game, and at that price point, it will be hard for them to penetrate the market under the weight of heavy hitters like ESS, VF, and Gintani.

While I'm curious to see what I think will be promising results, I (probably like most people here) sure as hell wouldn't guinea pig my car on an unproven kit, especially for 14k. They'll probably have to throw a lot of sponsorships out there to generate some kind of a sample size for the reliability of the kit. But can anyone really trust the veracity of someone's "unbiased" assesement of the kit or its reliability when they're getting sponsored (essentially paid). Especially with rumors of people being made subject to confidentiality (non-disclosure) agreements after certain kits, early in their development, blew engines.

I like the promise of this kit, but I will reserve judgment not for the actual release, but after this kit has been on 50, 100, 200 cars and the data demonstrates that the kit is safe on the engine. The question is, can they get that many kits on the car before people are moving on to the next thing. After alll, this car is coming to the end of its lifecycle.

-esquire

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

I think this thing will be incredible, I just don't understanding the business side of that project. An expensive new kit for a soon out of production car? Seems like they missed the boat by a couple of years.

There are several points I do agree and that I disagree with. I do agree that $13K is a little high coming out of nowhere into a market where trusted kits like ESS or VF can be bought for $8-11K, ranging on the type of kit. However, as a model of car ages, the car will become more affordable. If the e9x's follow a common trend, as they become more affordable, the cars reach a younger audience, which tend to mod the car more and more. (this can be seen with the e46 m3, and 335i) For example, the vargas turbo kit and Shiv's FFTEC turbo kit for the N54's only started really selling after the n54 cars had been phased out for the n55, and the older cars become more affordable. This was also seen with HPF and the s54 (their kits came out later in the life cycle of the engine) and yet HPF continued to develop new kits, built motor packages 6 years after the e46 generation m3 had stop being produced. (at a premium at that, people are paying more to get a stage 3 HPF S54 built than the car is worth itself)

So do I think the price is a bit high? For an air-to-water intercooled kit coming right out of the market that could potentially compete with the likes of a vt-625 or vf620, it might be a little bit high, however I think consumers would pay that small premium ($1300 more than an ESS VT-625 kit sourced from EAS, or $500 less than a vf620 kit) to have this new, innovative kit with a twin-screw response and power delivery -- obviously pending quality of the kit, performance, and overall reliability.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by SSRE

I actually think this kit will sell very well considering a complaint among many people, myself included, is that the M3 is anemic down low.

The "anemic" torque is already fixed with the centrifugals. No, it doesn't feel like a big block motor or like it might with this roots/vane-type blower, but you aren't going to be able to use all that power anyway. Just ask any Stage 2 S/C M3 owner about the issues they are already experiencing putting the power to the ground.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

The "anemic" torque is already fixed with the centrifugals. No, it doesn't feel like a big block motor or like it might with this roots/vane-type blower, but you aren't going to be able to use all that power anyway. Just ask any Stage 2 S/C M3 owner about the issues they are already experiencing putting the power to the ground.

I dont wish to argue this over and over. Tq is Tq, and below 8k rpms, the S65 is lacking. Look at any other V8 with boost and its apparant that the M3 is lacking it, doesnt need to be a "big block"

Compare a dyno like this to a centri. somehow, these cars seem to use that power.. I guess some people just prefer to have the most power all over, compared to peak RPM. Hence this is an option for them

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by Soorena

I don't agree. If you can manage to start the car with a positive displacement supercharger atached to your engine with ITB then you are good.

I saw more pics of this setup. It seems that they didn't ditch the ITB's. That's cool with a lot less electronic hassles to deal with.

[dvpouldar26]

Originally Posted by Team Plutonium

I agree with that, but the price of that SC does't seem to cater towards that demographic. If you wanna target the younger modding crowd that will buy these cars used you need to adjust the price accordingly IMHO. If they can do that (taking into account what they spent during R&D) they'll do well if it turns out to be a reliable kit.

I agree with that statement; they do need to lower their price eventually. However, i'm sure initially, in order to recoup R&D costs, the cost will stay high. As more and more kits are produced, the price of the kit will gradually be lowered to meet a larger demand pool. For example, i'm sure we can all agree that Evolve and Gintani have a smaller pool of customers who paid a premium for their kit. Vf is next up with a good handful more kits than those gintani and evolve kits out there, thus the slightly lower price point. And we all can agree that ESS, which has the most kits out there, has by far the lowest price point. If Harrop, or any company for that matter, follows that model (as long as the demand is there), then i'm sure the price will drop eventually as more and more kits are sold. It's hard to start out initially at a low price point from the get-go and recoup costs.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by SSRE

I dont wish to argue this over and over. Tq is Tq, and below 8k rpms, the S65 is lacking. Look at any other V8 with boost and its apparant that the M3 is lacking it, doesnt need to be a "big block"

Compare a dyno like this to a centri. somehow, these cars seem to use that power.. I guess some people just prefer to have the most power all over, compared to peak RPM. Hence this is an option for them

I can tell you from personal experience by attending virtually every roll-on event here in California that the big displacement and/or roots blown cars I race with similar HP (600-700HP and the same TQ) end up spinning on the initial hit. Heck I used to spin on the initial hit until I upgraded my tires. I have also spun at over 140 MPH nearing redline in 5th gear at Willow Springs on a cold day.

The fact is that traction is already at it's limit with the centrifugals. If you think our M3's can handle an additional 100 RWTQ in the low to mid range without traction issues, then good luck to you but you have been warned.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

I can tell you from personal experience by attending virtually every roll-on event here in California that the big displacement and/or roots blown cars I race with similar HP (600-700HP and the same TQ) end up spinning on the initial hit. Heck I used to spin on the initial hit until I upgraded my tires. I have also spun at over 140 MPH nearing redline in 5th gear at Willow Springs on a cold day.

The fact is that traction is already at it's limit with the centrifugals. If you think our M3's can handle an additional 100 RWTQ in the low to mid range without traction issues, then good luck to you but you have been warned.

First, Its absurd for one person to tell another they do or do not need anything. Its another option, dont want it, dont buy.
Secondly, Judging by the #1 vocalized shortcoming of the S65 owners, the response is lack of low end grunt. This solves that problem.

Again, I would assume less than 10% of time in the M3 is above even 7K, let alone 83-8600 rpms, its going to be nice to have more power, earlier.

[Nordstat]

I agree that opinions on the need for low end torque greatly differs across the board. However, traction is traction. Centrifugals lose it early and lose it often. The idea of a roots style blower is cool, but best of luck getting power to the pavement.

Personally, I don't mind downshifting to get my power on the NA s65. However, an ess-625 may be in my very near future...

[SAINT VAN ROCK]

I just realized this video was shot in my neck of the woods Interesting to see the gains at this elevation...thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by ///Matthew

I know they run them on NSXs... That motor is low-displacement and revs quite high.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

I can tell you from personal experience by attending virtually every roll-on event here in California that the big displacement and/or roots blown cars I race with similar HP (600-700HP and the same TQ) end up spinning on the initial hit. Heck I used to spin on the initial hit until I upgraded my tires. I have also spun at over 140 MPH nearing redline in 5th gear at Willow Springs on a cold day.

The fact is that traction is already at it's limit with the centrifugals. If you think our M3's can handle an additional 100 RWTQ in the low to mid range without traction issues, then good luck to you but you have been warned.

I can think of an application where it would be useful

[///Matthew]

Originally Posted by SAINT VAN ROCK

I just realized this video was shot in my neck of the woods Interesting to see the gains at this elevation...thanks for sharing!

Nice! You're welcome.

[pbonsalb]

There are plenty of 335i making 450 lbs rwtq and they are putting the power down.

[Verify]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

There are plenty of 335i making 450 lbs rwtq and they are putting the power down.

SSShhhhh... it doesnt have an 8300/8600 redline, so it cant be nearly as fun.

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

There are plenty of 335i making 450 lbs rwtq and they are putting the power down.

That's interesting but wasn't my experience. With meth/dps/tune I was at 446 RWTQ in my 2010 n54 6AT 335i and traction was a joke until I did an LSD and wider wheels + sticky tires. That was with stock turbos.

Go checkout the RB turbo guys making over 500 RWHP/TQ. I love running them because even with drag radials, they can't get traction on the initial hit on a 40-50 mph roll-on and I can pull a car or two immediately.

[pbonsalb]

Well, you just wrote that traction was a joke with about 450 lbs rwtq UNTIL you added LSD and wider wheels, which means traction was OK after that. So the traction issues associated with greater torque can be addressed.

I do agree that massive torque that breaks the tires loose can make it next to impossible to regain traction after that without backing way off the throttle. I have a 3200 lb E36M3 with a GT3582R turbo that makes 500 lbs rwtq by 4000 rpm and can fit only 255 wide tires. There is nothing I can do if I want to maintain that torque other than to cut the arches and run flares and much bigger tires and maybe a higher lock LSD. Or I can reduce torque to maintain traction -- one way would be to run a traction control system that cuts fuel like the Racelogic. Another would be to go to a slower spooling turbo like a GT4094R that would give a more centrifugal supercharger like power curve -- so I understand your comment about how the centrifugal can help traction. But massive torque is so much fun in a daily driver.

[THE TECH]

Traction can be modulated. It's not all about stomping on the pedal and hoping for the best.

[M3PO]

Originally Posted by THE TECH

Traction can be modulated. It's not all about stomping on the pedal and hoping for the best.

It's not? Should I open my eyes also?

[VCMpower]

My gen2 lvl 3 put down 275 wtq at 3000rpm, 300 wtq at 3500 rpm, 375 wtq at 4500 rpm, 400 wtq at 6200 rpm and 410 wtq at 7500 rpm. I am extremely happy with this tq curve and driveability feel on and off the track.
Dyno Dynamics.

Originally Posted by SSRE

First, Its absurd for one person to tell another they do or do not need anything. Its another option, dont want it, dont buy.
Secondly, Judging by the #1 vocalized shortcoming of the S65 owners, the response is lack of low end grunt. This solves that problem.

Again, I would assume less than 10% of time in the M3 is above even 7K, let alone 83-8600 rpms, its going to be nice to have more power, earlier.

[BPMSport]

I'm game for gobs of torque down low

[VCMpower]

Originally Posted by Mike Benvo

I'm game for gobs of torque down low

Code yourself in a bucket load dood

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Well, you just wrote that traction was a joke with about 450 lbs rwtq UNTIL you added LSD and wider wheels, which means traction was OK after that. So the traction issues associated with greater torque can be addressed.

I do agree that massive torque that breaks the tires loose can make it next to impossible to regain traction after that without backing way off the throttle. I have a 3200 lb E36M3 with a GT3582R turbo that makes 500 lbs rwtq by 4000 rpm and can fit only 255 wide tires. There is nothing I can do if I want to maintain that torque other than to cut the arches and run flares and much bigger tires and maybe a higher lock LSD. Or I can reduce torque to maintain traction -- one way would be to run a traction control system that cuts fuel like the Racelogic. Another would be to go to a slower spooling turbo like a GT4094R that would give a more centrifugal supercharger like power curve -- so I understand your comment about how the centrifugal can help traction. But massive torque is so much fun in a daily driver.

You've hit the essence of the issue. And it very well may be addressed in the Harrop twin screw by incorporating a system to regulate boost.

I did it with my 335 by being able to utilize the features within the Procede to create a customized boost map by targeting boost at 500 RPM intervals. This way when I went to the track, I had a linear power band. For non-track driving, I didn't just target max psi at 3,000 RPM as I knew that would create tire spin...so I kept boost down to 10-12 psi until 4,500 RPM and then it progressively ramped up to 18psi and then tapered to 16.5psi at redline. Did this work? Heck yeah I could cut 0-60 times of 3.5 seconds in street conditions.

My buddies Serge (Sick335) and Dave (SRanch335) both have RB turbo 335's with LSDs and drag radials/slicks, they are STILL spinning on the initial hit. Oh, and Serge busted his half shaft a few months ago as well. Why? 500+RWTQ. from 3,000 RPM to 4,500 RPM.

I'd love to see what happens to a DCT with a powerband like that. Oh wait you can....just see all the problems the guys are having with the 335is with upgraded turbos.